LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus JAGDEV SINGH TALWANDI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G 50 STATE OF PUNJAB v. JAGO.EV .S.INGI-i TALWANDI. December 16, 1983 . [Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., P.N. BHAGWATI, AMARllNDRA. NATH SEN, D.P. MA.DON AND M.P .. THAKKAR, JJ.] A· Con'Stifution of Jndfa, ]950, Artic!e 22 (5)-Pr_eventive Detention-Duty OJ detaining Authority-Con1p(iance with· strict terlns of the Constitution is a . 1nust-National Security Act (Act LXV of 1980) section 3. l. B · .Preventiv'e.Detentio~-,vational Securiiy Ac/ (Act LXV) of 19~o-seCtion 3 read. w;th Article 22(5) of the Constitution of Jndia, 1950-Ful.' details of the :Prejudicial activi11:es (dated, tinte pnd place) mentioned in the grout'ds of detention,-'· but not in the supporting particulars-Whether non~1nention fr1 the ·,~supporting particulars vitiate the entire pdoceedings" ? . C. Preventive Detention-Evidence gathered need not be furnished to the Deten1,1. .. D. Prl}Vt:ntive Detenton matter.J-Corllzter-afjidavits,by the detaining authority 01i receipi of notice ·of the writ, ilot bein'g /lirnished...:._Effect of· non-Jurnishing- Constitution of India, 1950 Article 22(5). E. Practice & procedure-Pronouncing final order without reasoned j1idgment and reserving the .Janie in Preventive .Det"ention CaSes-Prac1ice deprecated Conrlilution Of India Ar_ticle 226, 136 read with Civil Procedure Cod~ sections 33,107 ' aizd. Criminal Procedure Code, Section 354, Dif!er~nce' betwetn_High Court & Supreme Cour~ Proceffures, explained. · . The respondent challenged the order of his detention Passed ~y the District Magistrate, Ludhiana on October 3',1983 under section 3 (::i) read with section 3 (2) of .the Natio'nal Security Act,·1980. through Criminal \Vrit P~tition '.No. 516 of· 1983 .. :\ccor<ling 'to ihe Petitioner fespofldcnt. 'the' ground:; of detention served on. hin1· ori Oct. 6, 1983.showing ~hat he was detained On t:1c, basis of two sPeeches made by him on 8.7.1983 and 20.9.1983 as recorded by the Crime Investigation Depart.Jnent of the Punjab· Police contained certa n particulars, which were. totally' absent from the supporting n1a:tcrial and ihcrCfore no. 'reasonable Person could have Possible Passed the ·4etention order on the basis' of such material. The High Coui-t accepted the contention and Ola.de the rule absol~te. Hence the appeal by th,e State after obtainiilg special kave. ' Allo\ving the appeal and · rcmandin~ the n1attei to the Jfir,h Court of •• Punjab, the.Court H · H'E.LD : ! :J. -While passing orders of detaining. great care JU~ st be brought t b their task by the detaining authorities. Prevell~ive d!tention is .a· o ear .on . , • ,.... \ • • • PUNJAB V. J.S. ;TALWANDI 51 necessary evil but essentialJy an evil. Therefore: deprivation oi Personal liberty, if'at all, has to be on the strict tenns of the Constitutiori. Nothing less. [61 B·C] 1:2: In the instant.case, the detaining authority should not have adopted a somewhat casual and unimaginative approach· to his task.'· The original version contains almost every one of ·the material details. pertaining ·ta·. the meeting, . which are mentioned in ground '.No.1. The detaining ·authOrit:Y needlessly· ~pplied his scissors excising the data which mentioned the date, place, the iime and the. occas.ion of the meeting. It is this IaCk of thoughtfllIIless on the part of the detaining authority which furnished tQ the respondent the semblance of an argument. f61 A-BJ 2. The contention of th; respondent that he ·could not fnak~ ~n effective representation in b~half of ground No.1. because.of the inadequacy of data i~· the supporti~g particulars supplied to him i.s .incOrfect. The .. i'nadequacies from which the supplementary particulars furnished to the respondent along with ground No.J suffer, cannot affect that pcisition because,_ they do -nOf introduce any obs_- · Curity in the facts stated in that ground or detract from the substance of thC alle- . gatiQns. mentioned in th<it ground. The fii'st ground of detention mentions that · the detenu Was right only form"aily or technically. That is because, the C.I.D;. Report was suppJied to him along with the grounds· of detention with the express stipulation that it for'med "the bas'e of th~ grounds of dctentiOn."·. The ?rou!Jds mention every· one of fhe details which need have been mentihned. ·Tiie C'.l.J?. report was .f~rnished to the. detenu as forming the source 9f information leading to. the conclusion that he· had inade a speech
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.